It is sad. Ron Paul, however, would probably argue that the Academy, being a private school would have every right to exclude the Mina Johnson because her gender, color, or any other reason. And, Mitt Romney probably would have done nothing about this. After all, when the Mormon church finally caught up with the Civil War in 1978 by allowing blacks into their Tabernacle, all Romney did was cry (a rather ambiguous reaction); he wasn't one of the ones who fought to change his church. Man, all I can say is thank God for liberals, or Mina Johnson wouldn't have even had a chance to compete.

It is sad. Ron Paul, however, would probably argue that the Academy, being a private school would have every right to exclude the Mina Johnson because her gender, color, or any other reason. And, Mitt Romney probably would have done nothing about this. After all, when the Mormon church finally caught up with the Civil War in 1978 by allowing blacks into their Tabernacle, all Romney did was cry (a rather ambiguous reaction); he wasn't one of the ones who fought to change his church. Man, all I can say is thank God for liberals, or Mina Johnson wouldn't have even had a chance to compete.

Click to expand...

Well, the acadamy is a private institution, true. But this institution did not exclude her on any basis, not even playing in a traditionally male played sport. So I think your statement is off there.

It is sad. Ron Paul, however, would probably argue that the Academy, being a private school would have every right to exclude the Mina Johnson because her gender, color, or any other reason. And, Mitt Romney probably would have done nothing about this. After all, when the Mormon church finally caught up with the Civil War in 1978 by allowing blacks into their Tabernacle, all Romney did was cry (a rather ambiguous reaction); he wasn't one of the ones who fought to change his church. Man, all I can say is thank God for liberals, or Mina Johnson wouldn't have even had a chance to compete.

Back in 1976, Massachusetts ratified the Equal Rights Amendment in the November elections. The next day we played a soccer game against a school that fielded a girl at forward. We treated like any other game, actually we tried harder so we didn't " get beat by a girl".We would never have thought of not competing, and this was 35 years ago....

On that note let me make it clear that since this young lady probably already has a better fastball than Wake, if she could only develop a serviceable curve and decent off-speed pitch I'd support the Red Sox signing her. In fact if she could strike out Jeter or Arod to win the ALCS for the Sox I'd likely die of a sports orgasm right there on the spot.

That being said, girls are different from boys. Tackle Football isn't a co-ed sport.

"In the United States, the Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of single-sex public education in the 1996 case of United States v. Virginia. This ruling, written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg concluded that single-sex education in the public sector is constitutional only if comparable courses, services, and facilities are made available to both sexes."

I think that makes sense, but I also think that the law should support schools that want to judge people based on their skill level, not their gender.

On that note let me make it clear that since this young lady probably already has a better fastball than Wake, if she could only develop a serviceable curve and decent off-speed pitch I'd support the Red Sox signing her. In fact if she could strike out Jeter or Arod to win the ALCS for the Sox I'd likely die of a sports orgasm right there on the spot.

That being said, girls are different from boys. Tackle Football isn't a co-ed sport.

Click to expand...

I disagree. Again, if someone has the ability to make the team, let them play. While its true that many women will never gain the size to go further than hs to play tackle football, if any should show the ability to do so, they should be afforded the opportunity.

"In the United States, the Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of single-sex public education in the 1996 case of United States v. Virginia. This ruling, written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg concluded that single-sex education in the public sector is constitutional only if comparable courses, services, and facilities are made available to both sexes."

I think that makes sense, but I also think that the law should support schools that want to judge people based on their skill level, not their gender.

Click to expand...

just fyi, I'm not talking about legal v illegal, just wondering re opinions on various forms of discrimination / exclusion.

edit: btw, I don't think boys/girls should be excluded from most sports. Wrestling might be an exception, but I'd defer to people who actually wrestled.

I don't have a problem with girls player football. What I have a problem with is that sooner or later when one of them gets seriously injured because she's way out of her league, you know everyone is the world will be getting sued and her lawyer's argument against the school essentially will be "you should have known enough not to let my client place her own health in danger and forbidden her from playing."

I disagree. Again, if someone has the ability to make the team, let them play. While its true that many women will never gain the size to go further than hs to play tackle football, if any should show the ability to do so, they should be afforded the opportunity.

Click to expand...

I agree completely, everytime this stuff happens there is way too much brouhaha.. if she has the ability let her play. As a society we should have moved to a point where this is no longer in the news...

She should be allowed to play
That other team was wrong, they should have played the game and they should have treated her the same way would treat a man they should have played to win, if she got hurt, well that's football.

Personally in private life I wouldn't want to date a female football player, I like them soft, cuddly and feminine.

I wonder what that other team would have done if this girl had been Chaz Bono.

It is sad. Ron Paul, however, would probably argue that the Academy, being a private school would have every right to exclude the Mina Johnson because her gender, color, or any other reason. And, Mitt Romney probably would have done nothing about this. After all, when the Mormon church finally caught up with the Civil War in 1978 by allowing blacks into their Tabernacle, all Romney did was cry (a rather ambiguous reaction); he wasn't one of the ones who fought to change his church. Man, all I can say is thank God for liberals, or Mina Johnson wouldn't have even had a chance to compete.

Click to expand...

Now there's a shocka, Patters inserting partisan politics into a thread where none existed.

I'm mixed on issues like this. When there isn't a mens or girls team in a specific sport, and a person of the opposite gender is good enough to play, I don't have a real issue with them doing so. At the same time, I could totally understand why a women's field hockey team wouldn't want to play an opponent with 5 guys on it, or why a mens football team wouldn't want to be butting helmets with a woman on the football field. They do have separate teams for a reason. So while I understand why this happens (a boy/girl playing for a schools team of the opposite gender), I also can see why some people don't like it. I don't think you have to be an absolute yes or no on an issue like this.

I play in a hockey league where two of the teams have a girl on them. I have to say you do treat them differently. I personally play very passively when I'm near them. Some guys don't though. Some guys smash them into the boards when they dig in the corner for a loose ball. What's worse, is that the refs always call a penalty when you touch one the women, whereas they would never call the same action if it were two men. That part I find frustrating. If women, or men, want to play a mens or womens sport, then they shouldn't get any preferential treatment, or have any special expectations.

Oh, as for the team threatening to forfeit, so be it. That's their right. I happen to think they're stupid for doing so, but if as a team that's what they want to do, who am I to tell them they can't. I wouldn't have forfeited personally.

I'm mixed on issues like this. When there isn't a mens or girls team in a specific sport, and a person of the opposite gender is good enough to play, I don't have a real issue with them doing so. At the same time, I could totally understand why a women's field hockey team wouldn't want to play an opponent with 5 guys on it, or why a mens football team wouldn't want to be butting helmets with a woman on the football field. They do have separate teams for a reason. So while I understand why this happens (a boy/girl playing for a schools team of the opposite gender), I also can see why some people don't like it. I don't think you have to be an absolute yes or no on an issue like this.

I play in a hockey league where two of the teams have a girl on them. I have to say you do treat them differently. I personally play very passively when I'm near them. Some guys don't though. Some guys smash them into the boards when they dig in the corner for a loose ball. What's worse, is that the refs always call a penalty when you touch one the women, whereas they would never call the same action if it were two men. That part I find frustrating. If women, or men, want to play a mens or womens sport, then they shouldn't get any preferential treatment, or have any special expectations.

h, as for the team threatening to forfeit, so be it. That's their right. I happen to think they're stupid for doing so, but if as a team that's what they want to do, who am I to tell them they can't. I wouldn't have forfeited personally.

Click to expand...

OT: I think you hit on one issue -- what are the rules going to be? If everybody agrees on the rules and they're the same, then girls playing should be treated the same, as they supposedly want.

I played a contact sport in college, and we were friendly with girls' teams. For fun we'd sometimes scrimmage, but the rules were clear -- we played by one another's rules. i.e., we couldn't hit them (women's rules), but they could hit us (men's rules). it worked out fine and was pretty fun.

otoh, I remember playing pickup basketball in grad school, and a woman we were friends with was playing. She had played Div I hoops, though she wasn't particularly good and it wasn't a strong program. (I did not play in college.) I laid back as I didn't know how aggressively to cover her. And she could shoot, so she was absolutely lighting me up. Finally, I decided to block one of her jumpers -- and I didn't hear the end of it from her, that guys shouldn't do that... but, hey, plenty of guys are whiners when they play pickup, too

It is sad. Ron Paul, however, would probably argue that the Academy, being a private school would have every right to exclude the Mina Johnson because her gender, color, or any other reason. And, Mitt Romney probably would have done nothing about this. After all, when the Mormon church finally caught up with the Civil War in 1978 by allowing blacks into their Tabernacle, all Romney did was cry (a rather ambiguous reaction); he wasn't one of the ones who fought to change his church. Man, all I can say is thank God for liberals, or Mina Johnson wouldn't have even had a chance to compete.

Click to expand...

why is it that you feel a compulsion to make every frikkn thing in life a partisan issue?

Even when people don't mention left or right, you ALWAYS have to bring it up.

What the heck is wrong with you Patters? Do you have nightmares about "Righties"? If you do, good!

OT: I think you hit on one issue -- what are the rules going to be? If everybody agrees on the rules and they're the same, then girls playing should be treated the same, as they supposedly want.

I played a contact sport in college, and we were friendly with girls' teams. For fun we'd sometimes scrimmage, but the rules were clear -- we played by one another's rules. i.e., we couldn't hit them (women's rules), but they could hit us (men's rules). it worked out fine and was pretty fun.

otoh, I remember playing pickup basketball in grad school, and a woman we were friends with was playing. She had played Div I hoops, though she wasn't particularly good and it wasn't a strong program. (I did not play in college.) I laid back as I didn't know how aggressively to cover her. And she could shoot, so she was absolutely lighting me up. Finally, I decided to block one of her jumpers -- and I didn't hear the end of it from her, that guys shouldn't do that... but, hey, plenty of guys are whiners when they play pickup, too

Click to expand...

If it's high school football, there won't/can't be any different rules for girls if they play. I'm sure those boys who do play against her try to hit her extra hard just to let her know it's her choice. I know I would have given a girl a few extra cheap shots if I had one trying to block me. Mainly because I don't think girls belong on boys teams and vice-versa.

why is it that you feel a compulsion to make every frikkn thing in life a partisan issue?

Even when people don't mention left or right, you ALWAYS have to bring it up.

What the heck is wrong with you Patters? Do you have nightmares about "Righties"? If you do, good!

Click to expand...

Seemed like a good opportunity to bring to the attention of those who sympathize with the girl that Ron Paul would probably defend the rights of the school to discriminate against her because of her gender. Why do you take issue with that observation by making a personal attack against me?

By the way, PR, perhaps you haven't noticed, this is the Political Forum.

Now there's a shocka, Patters inserting partisan politics into a thread where none existed.

BTW, isn't thread hijacking against the rules? :nono:

Click to expand...

Is that your defense of Ron Paul? As I pointed out to PR, this is the political forum, and in my opinion if you think this woman is being treated unfairly, you ought to be reminded that Ron Paul would probably back the right to discriminate against her. I know the truth hurts, so I do understand why one might use deflection to respond to my points.